[hijaxers]

Originally Posted by Germyle

Yes and their excuse for not doing so is stupid (something along the lines of racism/racial profiling)

I’m black and I don’t mind being searched every day if it involves ‘possibly’ preventing someone being murdered

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Right; but then do we always have to ensure that officers work in mixed-sex pairs? If two male officers suspect a female is armed, do they overlook it? Can a female officer search a male?

And most importantly - WHY would it have to be a female officer for girls. The answer is an obvious one; "because being body searched is a huge invasion of personal space and privacy".

And that's why it shouldn't ever be accepted as a normal part of living in a city.

They would radio through for a female officer to go to them

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

They would radio through for a female officer to go to them

So not only are we stopping and searching people, we're detaining them for however long it takes for another officer to show up? With complete disregard for the fact that they might actually have somewhere they need to be? What if they need to catch a bus or a train, or are on their way to work?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

They would radio through for a female officer to go to them

So if you got stopped by two male officers randomly, you'd be happy potentially waiting for potentially a long while just to have them invade your privacy based on a hunch?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Right; but then do we always have to ensure that officers work in mixed-sex pairs? If two male officers suspect a female is armed, do they overlook it? Can a female officer search a male?

And most importantly - WHY would it have to be a female officer for girls. The answer is an obvious one; "because being body searched is a huge invasion of personal space and privacy".

And that's why it shouldn't ever be accepted as a normal part of living in a city.

Well yes if that is what work, pouring police onto the streets with no powers is pretty useless to me anyway

If you lived in a problem area I think you would be delighted to see people being stopped and searched.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

So not only are we stopping and searching people, we're detaining them for however long it takes for another officer to show up? With complete disregard for the fact that they might actually have somewhere they need to be? What if they need to catch a bus or a train, or are on their way to work?

If it saves young lives then yes i would

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

If it saves young lives then yes i would

It would definitely save lives if we enforced a curfew that stops everyone from going out of their homes after 10pm. Would you support that?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It would definitely save lives if we enforced a curfew that stops everyone from going out of their homes after 10pm. Would you support that?

It really wouldn't given alot of the most recent stabbings have taken place in daytime

Have you ever been pulled over by the police in the past to check you have insurance or are not over the limit? Are you giving up your liberties when that happens?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Cherie

It really wouldn't given alot of the most recent stabbings have taken place in daytime

My point was more that there are obviously more and more measures that can be taken and its not just a case of "anything goes for safety". I mean how about... We make it that people under 18 aren't allowed to leave their homes AT ALL other than to attend school. That would definitely save young lives? But we would never consider doing it. Because at the end of the day, everyone has to admit that they draw the line between liberty and safety SOMEWHERE. For some, random searches without cause are on the acceptable side of that line. For others, it never will be.

Have you ever been pulled over by the police in the past to check you have insurance or are not over the limit? Are you giving up your liberties when that happens?

They check insurance / MOT status remotely these days with no need to pull anyone over and other than that... No... I'm not OK with the police pulling people over without cause. As far as I'm aware, they don't? They would only pull you over if you were speeding or driving erratically, which is when they would test for inebriation. Or for safety reasons like if there were signs of there being something wrong with the vehicle.

[Toy Soldier]

To be clear, I have no issue with people being searched if there is a REASON to suspect they're carrying a concealed weapon... Like a visible handle, a bulge in the clothing, pulling clothing down when they see the police, or a report that someone is carrying, etc. - all of those I would say are directly comparable to being pulled over by traffic police.

What I would never be OK with is "random" searches where people could literally be walking to the shops minding their own business and be stopped. It's also VERY unlikely that there wouldn't be an element of racial / socioeconomic profiling going on there. They're not going to stop a guy in a Ł1000 suit and ask to look through his briefcase, are they. So it's not really "random" at all... If you're stopped, it's someone saying "sorry but you look like a potential criminal to me" - and that's the sort of thing that makes people feel outcast, and makes them more likely to seek belonging outside of "normal society". For example, in a gang.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

My point was more that there are obviously more and more measures that can be taken and its not just a case of "anything goes for safety". I mean how about... We make it that people under 18 aren't allowed to leave their homes AT ALL other than to attend school. That would definitely save young lives? But we would never consider doing it. Because at the end of the day, everyone has to admit that they draw the line between liberty and safety SOMEWHERE. For some, random searches without cause are on the acceptable side of that line. For others, it never will be.



They check insurance / MOT status remotely these days with no need to pull anyone over and other than that... No... I'm not OK with the police pulling people over without cause. As far as I'm aware, they don't? They would only pull you over if you were speeding or driving erratically, which is when they would test for inebriation. Or for safety reasons like if there were signs of there being something wrong with the vehicle.

Before cameras became the norm, they pulled you over, the last time we were in Ireland there was a Garda checkpoint, in Spain you will often find the Guardia Civil stopping traffic and randomly checking things, I don't this it is a bad thing, as it acts as prevention, if you think you might be stopped and searched I think you would be less likely to wander around with a kitchen knife in your pocket, that is my view anyway

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Cherie

if you think you might be stopped and searched I think you would be less likely to wander around with a kitchen knife in your pocket, that is my view anyway.

Well yes, you'd be less likely to do a lot of things if you feel like you're constantly being watched and controlled. That's the whole concept of "1984", after all.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

They're not going to stop a guy in a Ł1000 suit and ask to look through his briefcase, are they.

To be fair, such a person is less likely to be involved in violent crime.

Spoiler:

Apart from this guy

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well yes, you'd be less likely to do a lot of things if you feel like you're constantly being watched and controlled. That's the whole concept of "1984", after all.

So what is your solution to the problem right now, apart from everyone upping sticks and moving out of their communities which was your solution to the problem on Saturday

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To be clear, I have no issue with people being searched if there is a REASON to suspect they're carrying a concealed weapon... Like a visible handle, a bulge in the clothing, pulling clothing down when they see the police, or a report that someone is carrying, etc. - all of those I would say are directly comparable to being pulled over by traffic police.

What I would never be OK with is "random" searches where people could literally be walking to the shops minding their own business and be stopped. It's also VERY unlikely that there wouldn't be an element of racial / socioeconomic profiling going on there. They're not going to stop a guy in a Ł1000 suit and ask to look through his briefcase, are they. So it's not really "random" at all... If you're stopped, it's someone saying "sorry but you look like a potential criminal to me" - and that's the sort of thing that makes people feel outcast, and makes them more likely to seek belonging outside of "normal society". For example, in a gang.

The police stop the people they know are likely to carry. Tough luck if some herbert feels he is being profiled. or some "community leader"

they dont deal with crime, the police do

[Cherie]

as for 1984 when you signed up to social media you ticked that box.

[Maru]

It's legal to carry those things here, but I wouldn't agree to it here if it were illegal when citizens have the ability to arm themselves... but if they are in an area where those people are heavily dependent on the police for their personal safety, then yes, I think citizens should considering allowing it.. and maybe an argument could be made that it would even be a civil obligation in order to get the issue under control... but I personally would not be thrilled with that policy. It puts officers in additional danger when those stops go sideways and it also puts regular citizens through additional duress for the sake of improving community safety... I don't think it would be a deterrent. It wouldn't be often enough with the amount of staff that most agencies keep. I just think it's just leading to things like more corruption in the police, and an expanded state and loss of public trust... all which may lead to more crime anyway, or at least additional problems that may even offset the gains. It may not even make people feel less safe, for a number of reasons, but also because of the increased police presence...

It's like when we go to the airport in the US and they have additional security. There will be soldiers in uniform who are fully armed. Sure, it makes us feel safer in that... well these guys got my back... but then we are also more conscious when we walk into areas where they are not at... so it is a constant reminder in some ways.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It is ineffective, look it up. There's plenty of studies that have come to the same conclusion

All Stop and Search does is erode people's rights and it's an insult to those that have died to preserve our rights. Worst of all, it's a false sense of security.

People didn’t die to potentially allow people to walk around carrying knives and guns unchallenged. If some groups are more likely to carry it makes sense they would be more likely to be searched. The innocent have nothing to fear.

[The Slim Reaper]

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

have you any quotes from people who have lived in the last 250 years?

you know what with the advent of tv, radio, cars, planes, internet, nuclear weapons, space travel etc?

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

have you any quotes from people who have lived in the last 250 years?

you know what with the advent of tv, radio, cars, planes, internet, nuclear weapons, space travel etc?

Why? The premise is still absolutely correct. A truism is a truism regardless of the date of origin.

I knew Hitch wouldn't let me down;

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Why? The premise is still absolutely correct. A truism is a truism regardless of the date of origin.

I knew Hitch wouldn't let me down;

but why does that in any way relate to the subject matter?

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

but why does that in any way relate to the subject matter?

I posted a quote that I agree with that relates to the subject matter, which you questioned and asked for another one, which I provided.

I could have just written the quote and took credit for it I guess; would that have made you feel better?

Have I made a mistake, and this thread isn't really about volunteering away our privacy and civil liberties for the idealised solution to knife crime?

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I posted a quote that I agree with that relates to the subject matter, which you questioned and asked for another one, which I provided.

I could have just written the quote and took credit for it I guess; would that have made you feel better?

Have I made a mistake, and this thread isn't really about volunteering away our privacy and civil liberties for the idealised solution to knife crime?

Yes i get all the fancy words about liberty but this thread is about solutions

what do you propose as a solution?

[parmnion]

I predict a riot.